« Jesus, Music and Chainsaws | Home | 2008 is Enough »
Biting the hand that reached out to touch me
I received a telemarketing call at 4:22 p.m. on January 13, 2009, in the middle of an ordinary work afternoon. It was one of those annoying recorded messages selling dentures, of all things. Although my home phone number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry nearly since its inception, we still get telemarketing calls once in a while.
But this one was different. A number showed up on Caller ID–-410-255-6711–-and a name, M Daniel. Usually these calls are spoofed in some way, with the ID blocked or with zeroes showing up as the incoming number. If a call has a restricted or spoofed ID, I let it go to voice mail. I only answered the phone because it was a name and a local number, assuming that it was a legitimate call.
Since all of my teeth are in their proper place, I have no need for dentures. Disturbing my quietude by a sales call was bad enough. The implication that I am edentulous only compounded the insult. My curiosity nonetheless piqued, I couldn’t resist the urge to look up the directory information for 410-255-6711:
410-255-6711
M. Daniel DDS
8142 Bell Tower Xing
Pasadena, MD 21122-3837
According to Rona Melton, verifications coordinator of the Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners (410-402-8513), there is no dentist with the last name of Daniel licensed in Maryland. That’s interesting.
Googling the phone number revealed several web sites where complaints about automated telemarketing calls from 410-255-6711 have been registered. Records indicate that telemarketing calls have been made from 410-255-6711 for at least a year. At one site, at least three people reported receiving telemarketing calls from 410-255-6711:
“I tried to disconnect the call, but could not until the message was finished,” said a user named Chris. “This is a dangerous and sleazy way to advertise.”
“…[N]o one can get through to stop the annoying phone calls,” said a user named Debbie.
“I printed out the doctors information and mailed him his own entry reminding him that I was on the Do Not Call List; and if I received ANY further calls, I would report him to the FCC as being in violation of the list,” wrote a user named Robbin.
I went to whitepages.com and did a reverse address lookup on 8142 Bell Tower Crossing (left top, click to enarge).
The residents of 8142 Bell Tower Crossing are Daniel L. and Carol Maloof. According to Melton, Maloof is licensed to practice dentistry in Maryland and presently has no marks on his record.
The Maloofs have several phone numbers listed at 8142 Bell Tower Crossing, including 410-437-4589. Since it includes Carol’s name and is labeled residential, this is likely a home phone number.
The results for Daniel Maloof (left bottom) include 410-761-6050, which shares an address with one of his practices. There are at least two other phone numbers associated with 8142 Bell Tower Crossing, including 410-255-6711 under the name “M Daniel DDS,” and 410-255-2400 under the names “Daniel M DDS” and “Daniel, M.” The latter two numbers are presumably the lines used for denture telemarketing.
Pasadena, Maryland, isn’t too far from my house. About 17.2 miles, according to Google Maps. One of the great things about Google Maps is that it provides driving directions. The resolution of the new images is amazing. You can practically count the blades of grass on the lawn. Google Streetview is also very cool.
View Larger Map
The address is located in a development called Farmington Village, off Rte. 100 on the way to exclusive Gibson Island. A little too tidy and sterile for my tastes, but not shabby. A corner lot across the street from the community pool. Nice.
According to Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation, the 2,900-square-foot house was built in 1998 and assessed at $645,080 in 2007. That value may have deflated a little since then. Still not bad considering they picked it up for $299,990 in 2000. Fascinating what you can learn from public records. All kinds of stuff, if you know where to look.
But wait a minute. I wonder to myself: Commercial solicitation calls from an area zoned residential? Is that…legal?
Maloof is identified as President of Gentle Dental, a three-dentist practice along with John Vandenberge, DDS, and Richard Nemes, Jr., DDS. I bet that right around now Vandenberge and Nemes are thanking god the telemarketing lines aren’t listed in their names. But they still aren’t off the hook.
Gentle Dental owns several domain names, including denturesbaltimore.com, denturesmaryland.com and gentledentalofbaltimore.com. They are registered at GoDaddy and have this in the whois results:
Administrative Contact:
Maloof, Daniel charlie@advp.com
Gentle Dental
8142 Bell Tower Crossing
Pasadena, Maryland 21122
United States
(410) 437-4589
The Gentle Dental web site lists three addresses: 7102 Richie Highway, 1003 North Point Boulevard Suite 602, and 10316 Baltimore National Pike Unit B. The phone numbers given for all locations are 1-888-GO-GENTLE (888-464-3685), 410-239-0002 and 410-761-6050. The Ellicott City office also has 410-313-9676 for phone and 410-313-9146 for fax.
HERE’S WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING
In Maryland, the practice of dentistry is covered by the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). Specifically, dentistry falls under Subtitle 44 of Title 10 of COMAR. The matter of advertising is addressed by 10.44.06.02, which prohibits a dentist from “the use of any form of public communication” that contains a “material misrepresentation of a fact.” The regulation also requires advertising to “include the name of a responsible licensed dentist.”
Intentional or not, Maloof knew, or should have known, that business telephone numbers weren’t listed in his legal name. One can reasonably contend that Maloof is masking his legal identity in phone listings and Caller ID, and materially misrepresenting an important fact. A recipient of these solicitations is unable to determine whether the seller is a licensed and qualified professional, because “M Daniel DDS” does not exist.
Violation of advertising regulation is considered unprofessional conduct, and may result in disciplinary action that includes civil penalties and loss of licensure. According to COMAR, Maloof, Vandenberge and Nemes can be held individually responsible for improper activities done on their behalf.
Another observation: Penalties for violating the National Do Not Call Registry are up to $11,000 per incident. Each and every call is considered a separate violation.
Unsolicited telemarketing calls are also covered by the Telephone Consumers Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991. Under the provisions of TCPA:
- The solicitor must maintain a “Do Not Call” (DNC) list.
- Solicitors must provide their name, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone number or address at which that person or entity may be contacted.
- Solicitation calls cannot be made to residences with artificial voices or recordings.
TCPA permits individuals to collect damages directly from a solicitor, in the amount of $500 per violation or “actual monetary loss,” whichever is greater. The damages may be tripled to $1,500 per violation if the consumer is able to show that the caller violated rules willfully and knowingly — which is arguably the case in this situation.
According to Wikipedia, even though TCPA is a federal law “suits brought by consumers against violators are generally heard in state courts.” I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t play one on television, but an individual could probably file in small claims court, which has a limit of $5,000 in Maryland, and represent himself.
What’s mind-boggling is that Gentle Dental is exposed to potential financial liability to the tune of $12,500 per call. That’s $12,500 per call. Take another moment to contemplate that number: Twelve thousand five hundred dollars. Per call.
How many solicitation calls were generated by 410-255-6711 in the past year? At least four are documented to date. Only a lawyer can say whether this constitutes a class. I have no idea what the total number of outbound calls may be, but I’m sure the phone company has those records.
If you received a telemarketing call from 410-255-6711, you may want to consider the following actions:
► Go here to file a complaint for violating the National Do Not Call Registry.
► Pursue the collection of damages to which you may be entitled under TCPA. KeytLaw.com has a good example of a demand letter for junk faxes that could be adapted. You can learn more about drafting a demand letter by searching Google. TCPALaw.com is another good resource, including a directory of attorneys familiar with TCPA law. The District Court of Maryland has a guide to filing in small claims court in PDF format.
► File a complaint about TCPA violations with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The agency has an online complaint form. You can also file a complaint by emailing fccinfo@fcc.gov, by calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY, or by fax to 1-866-418-0232. Read FCC’s consumer page for more information about TCPA.
► Contact the Maryland Attorney General Consumer Protection Division. The Consumer Hotline is 410-528-8662 or 888-743-0023 toll-free. You can also email consumer@oag.state.md.us.
► Contact the Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners. Forms to file a complaint about improper advertising are available in PDF and MS Word format.
As soon as this is publicly published, I’m doing all of the above.
► Email me, leave a comment below, or call me at 443-226-5607.
January 26, 2009
Topics: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
January 26th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Bruce——- Please add a paragraph regarding our conversation and my side of the story. I would like people to know that our goal has always been to be dialing only people who were not on the do not call list and to immediately remove the number of anyone who did not want to be called. Even though we clean our list through the do not call agency there seems to be a few numbers that do not get deleted. I never know who did not get deleted until someone calls me. Then I press a few buttons and delete the number. It has never been a problem. I feel bad when somone gets called who should not, but I cant control it. All I can do is apologise and do my best to make sure it does not happen again. My goal is to give Gentle Dental a good name, not a bad name. Sincerely, Daniel Maloof D.D.S.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I spoke by phone with Dr. Maloof on January 26, 2009. Maloof did not dispute the truthfulness or accuracy of my reporting, nor did he challenge any of the facts I presented.
However, Maloof did provide some explanation for the telemarketing calls.
Maloof said that Gentle Dental has been doing telemarketing for about 5 years. He said the practice hired a marketing consulting firm which sold, installed and set up the phone system.
Maloof claimed that the telemarketing phone lines were ordered by the vendor, adding that it was “a couple of years later” when he discovered that the numbers were not listed in his legal name. The names used by the marketing firm – M Daniel DDS and Daniel M – “didn’t mean anything,” Maloof said.
“It isn’t like we’re hiding,” he said, adding that the Gentle Dental practice name and phone number are provided in the telemarketing message. I pointed out that unless the recipient is prepared with pen and paper and taking notes when answering the phone, the only information left with the recipient is on Caller ID, which Maloof conceded was true.
I believe, and this is strictly my own unsupported supposition, that the telemarketing lines were intentionally listed in fictitious names to shield Maloof and Gentle Dental from complaints. Who did it and why are immaterial in any event, since COMAR clearly states that Maloof and his partners are personally responsible for misleading or deceptive statements communicated by themselves or on their behalf. Blaming the vendor is not a defense.
Maloof said that Gentle Dental has received a few complaints about its telemarketing. “We don’t get many, but we do,” he said. I suggested that considering that he’s pitching dentures to a predominantly elderly population, very few recipients have the wherewithal to do a “whois” search and track down the caller, to which Maloof agreed may be true.
Furthermore, I asked whether the fact he has received complaints from people like me and others on the Do Not Call List suggests that he is not in compliance with the law. Maloof said that “it takes a half-hour to get through” to get Do Not Call List updates and then added “we do everything we’re supposed to do.”
In his response here, he seems to suggest that I and others received calls due to some other fault – numbers not properly deleted from the list. I have been on the list for years, and were it the case that somehow my number reappeared on an approved list I would expect to receive telemarketing calls from other companies that used the same list. This is not the case. It is the telemarketer’s responsibility that they are using lists that are true, correct and in compliance with the law.